HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN?
Wednesday, Aug 14 2013

A recent communication from a long-time friend in my home state has once again brought to the surface a very serious issue. The church where he had been a member for most of his life called a new pastor, who failed to inform the church of his intent to remake the church into the emerging-church model. While only God knows his motive, the result became very public. When those who had sacrificed, given, and served for years to create a healthy local assembly began asking questions, they were stiff armed. As time passed, people who had comprised the heart of that church ministry were told to either fall in line with the new plan or leave. In the end, yet another previously healthy congregation moved into the emerging-church tragedy.

We need to begin by agreeing that it is clearly dishonest for any man to accept the leadership of a church without being upfront about his intentions. Even if it is a theological issue that needs to be corrected, he must be transparent.

The question is often asked, “How do you know when the emerging church is emerging in your church”? It has happened to some of you and very soon is about to happen to others. That is what this article is about.

A CLEAR VIEW OF THE EMERGING CHURCH

In reality, the emerging church is simply the road to the emergent church. In the latter, because that movement is at home with heresy, a theology that is biblical is almost destroyed. The emerging church is a façade. It looks good to those who are not settled in their theology, but it is fraught with doctrinal error. No church has ever entered its clutches without having its theology compromised. That cancer is covered by defenders of the movement by “complicating to confuse”. What is needed instead is an approach that “simplifies to clarify”.

To avoid revealing the theological weaknesses of the emerging church, a liberal tool is used: all conversation about it is steered toward culture and methodology rather than the dangers of doctrinal deviation. Although many of their methods are not inherently evil, some are dangerous. Methods, however, are not at the center of this problem; theology is. The emerging church uses its methods, and the ensuing debate about them, to turn from truth. Every church that has headed down the road of the emerging church has been lulled by the siren song of “methods”. When the doctrinal compromise which has occurred is finally realized, by then it’s too late; it is but one more step to the emergent church where at first doctrine doesn’t matter, and finally it is hated. It all begins with the mantra that “the Bible doesn’t speak to that”. Methods do matter, and the Bible records the death of some who were not careful about this.

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION

If a church is leaning toward the emerging model, don’t expect to see much of a doctrinal shift from the pulpit; it is more subtle than that. The attitude about the content of sermons, and even their length, may create some valid questions. When the pulpit is removed from the “worship center”, members should begin to ask, “What is central here?” Many churches helpfully place Bibles in the pews for anyone who may not have one, but that is, of course, no longer necessary if the Bible has become merely a fetish in man-centered worship. Don’t waste your time judging any individual churches about each of these things; one single issue will only serve to create a question and not necessarily an answer.

A majority of the churches which are moving left have had a major shift in their style of worship. I have pledged not to get in the middle of the “worship wars”, so I will be brief with this. The concern with this topic is that much of the move in worship styles has left the true meaning of worship behind, a telltale sign of the emerging church. Jesus made this plain to the Samaritan woman: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”. (John 4:24). How can we worship God when truth is left behind and when we sing lies? How can we worship God when man, rather than God, is the center of a side show misnamed “worship”?

Music is one of the best indicators of the emerging church infection. Some say that the Bible does not speak to this subject, but that is more of a confession than an observation. If you walk blindfolded into a “worship” service and can’t tell whether you’re in a church or a nightclub or a rock concert or a bar, something is definitely wrong. Showmanship and low-talented performances where you have no idea what the words even are that are being sung should leave you with questions. Even over-used phrases that border on “vain repetition” should make us begin to ask some questions.

FINE TUNING

Any one of these things by itself might not be a condemnation, but taken as a whole they should set off the warning lights. It is clear that every church which has made this transition gave the warning early on in the form of culture, methods, and worship changes. One could not say that the leaders in every case knew what they were doing, but in the end they had to give up something theologically. So…if you are asking, “Is this emerging in my church?” you’d better spend some time thinking about what is going on and asking some Bible questions. If there is no one in your church who has the ability to understand a theology that is biblical, then ask someone who does.

I wasn’t born yesterday, and I have already heard time and again the defense of the emerging church arguments, so if you have input, please make it theological – not philosophical.

I’m not exactly sure what theological issues you meant. Theology was mentioned but it wasn’t expounded as to make your meaning clearer. If you mean the theology of Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, Gregory Boyd and Steve Chalke, I’m in agreement with you. These men are the face of the emerging/emergent movement. Basically, classical liberalism in modern form. Just trying to understand where you are coming from.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Ok. Thanks, but I’m sure Reformed theology isn’t an issue for the men I listed above and it is mostly disdained by the emerging/emergent crowd. Why? Because those in the Reformed tradition do tend to take doctrine very seriously. In fact, as serious as fundamentalists do. I don’t believe Reformed theology is really an issue in this discussion. The issues of sin, hell and who God is are what’s at steak in relation to the emerging/emergent crowd. If Reformed theology were an issue, I’d have to lay aside anything by C.H. Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, John Newton, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Cary, George Mueller, Richard Sibbes, John G. Paton and a host of others, because all of these men were 5-point Calvinists.

I will assume you are open to further discussion and that you have read the info on these movements. The emerging church is the road to the emergent church. By the time they get to the later they have left orthodox Christianity. The present article deals with the early stages of the emerging church. It is methodology that hints of theological error. The problem here is that Calvinism, Reformed and Covenant Theology are not the same. They are part of a progression, the road to error. In my Apologetic and Hermeneutic classes one of the first things is to recognize that “similarities are not equals”. Students are required to read a lot of authors including those you listed. Just because authors hold an error doesn’t mean that all they held was error, or that they all held the same error. You don’t toss people out because they are wrong somewhere and none of us are perfect, but God’s Word is. Reformed theology is indeed an issue in the early stages of the emerging church and there are errors in Reformed theology. The reason for this is that those positions use a different hermeneutic. The do use a biblical hermeneutic for some things but persist on using a different one when it comes to eschatology, soteriology and pnematology. Consider reading the notes on this site under apologetics and hermeneutics.

Another indication that often goes unnoticed is the use of terminology that involves the phenomenon of “vision casting.” When the pastor begins to talk about a new vision for the church one has to look at the source of these ideas and they often point back to emergent church authors like Rick Warren.

Absolutely, I’m open to further discussion regarding this. What my point is, is that good men on both sides of this issue (Calvinistic theology) have disagreed over the years (hundreds of years) and they did not cease fellowshipping. Spurgeon and Moody, Whitefield and Wesley are great examples of this. I don’t have to go along with everything another brother expounds and can still love them and listen to them. I still think that putting what is known as “New” Calvinism and men like Piper, Dever, Keller, et al in with Rob Bell, Greg Boyd & Brian McClaren is to be highly uninformed. To put Calvinistic theology as a possible root to emerging/emergent church is also to be uninformed. This only happens when we fundamentalists refuse to listen to the original source we critique and only get our information second or third hand. If you or anyone else doesn’t like or agree with Calvinistic theology, that’s fine. BUT, to lump all of the men I mentioned above together, is uninformed and a great error that comes from not listening to those we critique. That’s really where I’m coming from. I don’t expect everyone to line up exactly, that’s perfectly ok. I will not argue about this with hostility, but I do think is it dishonest to portray Christian brothers in a way we would not like to be portrayed ourselves. I’m not here to discuss whether it is or isn’t right to be a Calvinist. If you would like to listen or read what these brothers have said and written regarding the emerging/emergent church I would be happy to pass along a few links.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

It is possible that you missing the point here. This has nothing to do with good men, fellowship or disagreement. As I explained each category Calvinism, New Calvinism, Reformed, Covenant all have a wide range of perspectives. They are not one but many. The issue is single errors, one by one, that are held in Reformed theology etc. We don’t lump them together we deal with them one by one. It is indeed the confessions of those theologians we challenge. I read them by the ton. The one point here is that in dealing with their errors one by one we must ask how they got to that position. That is where the one biblical hermeneutic comes in and this discussion is all about the process. The hermeneutic has to be how we arrive at truths. You are right, we must not be respecters of persons. We must respect the clear teaching of the text. Two people can only arrive at the same view when they use the same hermeneutical system.

True, we will not agree if we do not have the same hermeneutical system. I do think that our presuppositions feed into our own hermeneutical understanding. Sometimes we don’t even see our own presuppositions and that can alter our hermeneutical understanding of the Bible. I wouldn’t call Calvinism an error, myself. Do I like all it brings hermeneutically to the Bible? No. Why? It makes for hard questions. Is it an error? Only if one goes further than revelation that is given. You don’t have to be a Calvinist for that to happen. Can Calvinism lead to liberalism? Maybe, I guess, but error only happens when we leave clear revelation. There is much to be said there. Much of the issue between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is many on both sides have chosen (no pun intended) the side they like. Who doesn’t like the “whosever will” part of scripture? Many don’t like the “no man can come unless he is drawn” side. I will not choose a side. If you do, you will not have a complete truth that can lead to error. Spurgeon is so good at loving both sides of the issue. His sermons are wonderful and I find it interesting that many see him as confusing because he loves both sides. That’s where I land. Spurgeon has been a pastor to my soul because of his child-like handling of the Bible.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Jay, thank you for the continuing conversation. Let me see if I can clarify somethings. Everyone has presuppositions, the wonderful thing is the the one biblical hermeneutic is constructed to erase those presuppositions. Other systems build on presuppositions. I agree I would not call Reformed theology error but it does have error in it. Error is only identified with the proper use of the text. I personally do not care to take sides with movements in that all movements are flawed. Thank God for fellow believers who have blessed us but the are not the authority the text is and we must not be afraid to challenge error.

Jay Thank you for sending the website and article. I had already read it this morning since I receive them weekly. I have a deep respect for the people involved and count them as friends. Our only differences would be about a single theological error, but that would not damage my friendship. Good minds talk about ideas.

All of us have presuppositions and they can affect ones interpretation. However the one biblical hermeneutic is mathematical in structure so that if the rules are followed they erase most presuppositions. Other hermeneutical systems are open to, or encourage, the use of presuppositions and that is what creates theological error. I have pointed several of these out in past articles of the SS.